A New Low in Anti-Marriage Equality Arguments

Every time I see an incredibly lame argument against same-sex marriage I think that’s as bad as those arguments get. Oh, foolish foolish Ed. Here’s a new argument filed in a legal brief in the marriage cases that will just leave you scratching your head.

It’s an insult to the gay men who marry women to suggest that they should have to marry the same sex.

One of the briefs advocating against marriage equality was filed by “same-sex attracted men and their wives.” Despite identifying as “same-sex attracted” (note: not “gay,” nor “ex-gay” for that matter), they “choose to build their families on the foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.” They worry that if same-sex marriage is legalized, it would communicate to other same-sex attracted men that “marriage to a member of the opposite sex is an impossibility, even meaningless, and only same-sex marriage can bring gays and lesbians the personal and family fulfillment and happiness that is the universal desire of the human heart. That one-size-fits-all message is false, and the Court ought not to send it.”

Almost all of the couples who signed the brief have participated in the “Voices of Hope” project, which collects videos of mixed-orientation Mormon couples, as well as other LGBT-identified Mormons who uphold the Church’s anti-LGBT teaching. The organization that oversees that project, North Star, does not explicitly advocate for ex-gay therapy, but last year, it did absorb the Mormon ex-gay organization Evergreen International. Among the signers is Jeff Bennion, who was featured on TLC’s My Husband’s Not Gay. Bennion co-founded North Star and has frequently defended ex-gay therapy.

Not all “Voices of Hope” oppose marriage equality though. Josh and Lolly Weed, who recorded a video for the project, were quoted several times in the brief, but objected to their inclusion, saying that they do not support its argument. “My wife and I support marriage equality,” Josh Weed told the Salt Lake Tribune, adding, “We know many wonderful people who are hurt by the current state of affairs.” Weed received a lot of media attention when he came out in 2012 as a “happily married” gay Mormon. He then had to deny rumors that he practiced ex-gay therapy in his own counseling work.

One of the only couples that signed onto the brief that wasn’t from the Mormon project was Doug Mainwaring and his wife, Valerie. Co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots in Maryland, Mainwaring believes the “liberal intelligentsia” is trying to dismantle marriage altogether and that gay dads are not capable of showing warmth and tenderness to their children.

So we should not let gay people marry other gay people because a tiny, tiny percentage of them might actually want to marry someone of the opposite gender even though letting gay people get married to one another will not prevent any of those people from marrying women if they chose. I don’t think it’s possible to invent an argument more stupid than that, but I’ve been wrong before.

“… I don’t think it’s possible to invent an argument more stupid than that…”

I don’t think it’s possible to view such a stew of logical fallacies and downright woo as an argument at all.

marcus

“…gay dads are not capable of showing warmth and tenderness to their children.”

This may be one of the most easily debunked speculation that anyone has ever pulled from their proverbial rectum.

In the course of my work as a bookseller I have the opportunity to see many gay families, My town even sponsors a “Gay Ski Week”. I have seen many gay dads here with their children, i can’t remember even once that they weren’t actively showing warmth and tenderness to their children. It is always quite lovely and heart-warming to see these dads introducing their kids to the wonder of books (we have a great children’s room). Mainwaring isn’t even wrong. He should get out more.

Synfandel

Just last week I caught a member of the liberal intelligentsia using a ratchet on my marriage. I’ll have to get a guard dog.

wreck

Yuck it up, homofascists, but this is what it will be like when you destroy traditional marriage. Don’t say you haven’t been warned:

Also, slavery should have remained legal since one day there might have been a black farmer and it would be racist to deny that black farmer access to the affordable labor slaves could provide.

arakasi

AFAICT, there is nothing in any of the marriage equality laws or court rulings that limits same-sex marriage to homosexual couples. I suspect that when marriage equality is fully legal and accepted in the US, the vast majority of marriages will match partners with orientation, but there will be room for couples who are together for other reasons.

Subtract Hominem, the Renegade Misandroid

The bi erasure is strong with this one.

cptdoom

marriage to a member of the opposite sex is an impossibility, even meaningless, and only same-sex marriage can bring gays and lesbians the personal and family fulfillment and happiness that is the universal desire of the human heart. That one-size-fits-all message is false, and the Court ought not to send it.”

Instead, apparently, the Court should send the message that states can enforce the “one-size-fits-all” model of man/woman marriage.

eric

Ed:

I don’t think it’s possible to invent an argument more stupid than that,

I’m skeptical we’ve reached the bottom of the barrel yet. I would say there is no bottom, but from a practical standpoint we will reach an end to such submissions whenever the official time period for submitting a brief ends.

arakasi:

there will be room for couples who are together for other reasons.

Maybe. Hetero marriage “for other reasons” has already been available to citizens, but it seems to me the cultural/sociological barriers to two friends or roommates doing it for purely economic reasons are pretty effective. I would not expect the situation to be different for SSM. Also, I doubt the US immigration system will look any more fondly on SSM-for-entry than it currently does heterosexual marriage-for-entry.

[Ed paraphrasing Mainwearing] …gay dads are not capable of showing warmth and tenderness to their children.

Another complete non sequitur of an argument. If you are concerned over the child-rearing skills of gay men, then it seems to me you would want them marrying other men. You would not create laws that would encourage them to marry women instead.

John Pieret

gay dads are not capable of showing warmth and tenderness to their children.

Umm … call yourself “same-sex attracted men” all you want, you and the others are gay dads. Are you saying you and the others are not capable of showing warmth and tenderness to your children?

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

@Ed, from the OP:

Every time I see an incredibly lame argument against same-sex marriage

Please, Ed! It’s differently-abled.

http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

“It’s an insult to the gay men who marry women to suggest that they should have to marry the same sex.”

It’s an insult to gay people who do not want to marry someone other than their same-sex partner. How does having the option to marry someone require that you marry them, anyway?

Chiroptera

Well, he does have a point. I can imagine that as LGBT are becoming more accepted in our society, there are probably plenty of gay people who married to hide their orientation now thinking, “Why the hell did we have to go through that bullshit?”

‘Course, I hope that most continue with, “I’m so glad the kids today have it easier.”

eric

Evidently, when it comes to SSM (and abortion, and probably a host of other issues), the right wing can’t distinguish between actual organ donation and the Meaning of Life version. Someone says “give these folks the option,” but they see Cleese with a chainsaw coming into their home.

marcus

This demonstrates the fact that the diversity of human relationships is rich and varied.

It is sad that these folks would deny others the right to marry the people that they love and form meaningful relationships on their own, whatever those relationships might be.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730511544 billdaniels

Sorry, Ed, but an even stupider brief has been filed. This one alleges that if the Supreme Courts decides in favor of marriage equality, the abortion rate will increase. It makes total sense. If same-sex marriage is allowed the number of opposite-sex marriages will increase and that will mean that more women will be having sex outside of marriage which will lead to the increase in abortions. Or something.

There was a speck o dust on the monitor and I read in #12 Gregory in Seattle comment “It’s an insult to gay people who do not want to marry someone.” as a complete sentence and thought well… just wait a little they’ll get there.

John Pieret

billdaniels @ 16:

Incidentally, the Washington Post has a nice takedown of the phony “statistics” used in that brief:

“Legalizing same-sex marriage devalues marriage and causes fewer heterosexual couples to marry, which leads to a larger number of unmarried women, who have abortions at higher rates than married women. As a result, Schaerr wrote, “nearly 900,000 more children of the next generation would be aborted as a result of their mothers never marrying.”